In a previous thread Chris Browne asked Mr. Lane the following question:

Quote:

What would be the consensus if, in place of a Mass said by a priest of the SSPX, the Mass was offered under the provisions of the Indult and under the aegis of the local bishop? Would the argument be different?

Even though Mr. Lane did not actually answer this question, I would like to take Mr. Browne’s thought a step further and ask Mr. Lane and other forum members this question:

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

According to what Mr. Lane and other forum members have said so far, I think their answer would have to be yes.

I put this up as a poll question, but I would be very interested in hearing the reasoning behind the answers one way or another.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:12 pm

JakeRM

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 amPosts: 63

Re: Sedes Assisting at B16’s Traditional Mass?

Sacerdos

You seem to be rather ill-informed for a sedevacantist. For example, are you not aware of the crucial difference between Benedict XVI and an SSPX priest? Benedict is a heretic. For further information on this, I suggest you bone up on the articles at http://www.traditionalmass.org

_________________JRM

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:50 pm

Mike

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 3:38 pmPosts: 483

Dear Sacerdos,

Since you are putting this question out to all forum members, let me say that the answer is that I would not actively assist at the Mass offered by Benedict XVI. The reason being is that I have privately, ie. prior to the judgment of the Church, formed the judgment that he is a heretic. The principles I am using in forming this private judgment of Benedict prior to any binding judgment of the Church can be summed up by this excellent paper by John Daly found here: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/judgeheresy.html

Yours in JMJ,

Mike

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:10 pm

Myrna

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pmPosts: 136Location: Spokane

A heretic is outside the Church!

_________________Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 1:17 pm

eliz carroll

Dear Sacerdos, I'm not falling for the silly question. I've already been accused of Donatism by your group. The answer has to be yes for you. He's a validly ordained priest, he confects the Sacrament You can't have it both ways. If Abp. Thuc's priests and bishops are valid even if they were not Catholic in the first place, hey, who are we to quibble?

I would not assist, for the same reason given by several here. I would avoid Indult Masses for the same reason. And, on that basis, I have a problem attending an una cum Mass of the SSPX, which is why I threw the question about Indult Masses into the discussion, because, to my mind, there is no essential difference between an Indult Mass said in union with someone I (privately, of course) hold to be a heretic, and an SSPX Mass also said in union with the same man. In fact, to my thinking, the only difference between the two is the issue of licitness - and, if you recognize B16 as Pope, licitness favors the Indult Mass. (Analogy might not be the most challenging or intellectual way to prove or understand something, but to me it is like an eye exam; e.g., "Can you see it now? Now? How about this?" Isn't it the final understanding, and not the method, that is important?)

This is not to say that I believe those attending SSPX Masses or the SSPX priest (or those taking advantage of the Indult) are insincere, but I do consider them unfortunate. (I don't mean that condescendingly.)

But, do we really know that this priest says his Mass una cum, and that priest does not? It has been awhile since I've served Mass, but , as a server, closer to the altar than those in the pews, I couldn't tell you in the many Masses I've served whether they did or not. However, I think most of us know on which side of this debate our priests fall.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:12 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

to my mind, there is no essential difference between an Indult Mass said in union with someone I (privately, of course) hold to be a heretic, and an SSPX Mass also said in union with the same man.

The "una cum" clause does not signify that the Mass is offered "in union with" anybody, not even the pope. The pope and the other leading members of the Church are prayed for by name during the Mass.

Now, make whatever argument you like, but if it rests on confusion over the very meaning of the words used, it won't convince anybody. This is no comment on you, of course, because you're new to this, but those who insist on describing Mass offered by a sedeplenist priest as offered "in union with Benedict" are implicitly admitting the essential weakness of their argument. This is because if they had a good argument they would be able to be honest about the words of the Mass.

[Edit: Split this thread to enable the meaning of the "una cum" clause to be discussed separately.]

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:16 am

sacerdos

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:44 amPosts: 34

I think Mr. Lane is getting off topic. The question that I'm polling forum members on for this thread is the following:

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Any opinion on that one, Mr. Lane?

Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:56 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

sacerdos wrote:

Any opinion on that one, Mr. Lane?

Sure, I agree with the other respondents and I'm a little surprised anybody would ask the question. It is unlawful to cooperate in sacred matters with heretics. Benedict is a heretic. Ergo.

How about you?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:08 pm

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

Re: Sedes Assisting at B16’s Traditional Mass?

sacerdos wrote:

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it...?

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Absolutely not. However, this is not the same thing as praying for him in the Mass.

I am certain that many people who have been prayed for in the Mass ended up lost.

Does that mean we are lost, or heretics, or committing sin by praying for them?

Again, absolutely not.

In fact, to pray for someone who is eventually lost is meritorious,

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon CinCMoscow, IdahoU.S.A.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:03 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedes Assisting at B16’s Traditional Mass?

JakeRM wrote:

Good point. What words does a pope actually pray in the Canon? He couldn't be praying for union of himself with himself, could he?

"In reply to the bishop of Orense who enquired how the Pope commemorated himself during the celebration of Mass, Innocent III, in a letter not yet published but preserved in the Vatican archives (bk. 9, no. 33) replied as follows: 'You have also asked to be instructed as to the words used by the Roman Pontiff at the place in the canon of the Mass where a priest of lower rank says 'together with our Pope,' since the Pope is then obviously praying for himself and is subordinate to no bishop. Our reply to your devotedness is this: at that place We say 'together with me your unworthy servant.'" (Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo.)

He prays FOR himself.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:19 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

I would not assist, for the same reason given by several here. I would avoid Indult Masses for the same reason. And, on that basis, I have a problem attending an una cum Mass of the SSPX, which is why I threw the question about Indult Masses into the discussion, because, to my mind, there is no essential difference between an Indult Mass said in union with someone I (privately, of course) hold to be a heretic, and an SSPX Mass also said in union with the same man.

I am interested in your reaction to the discovery that the "una cum" does not mean that we offer the Mass "in union with" whomever is named, but rather is a prayer for the men named.

Chris Browne wrote:

Analogy might not be the most challenging or intellectual way to prove or understand something, but to me it is like an eye exam; e.g., "Can you see it now? Now? How about this?" Isn't it the final understanding, and not the method, that is important?

Analogy provides illustration, not proof. It's like drawing a picture. The picture may or may not be a real representation, but if it is, it will assist another to see the truth. If it isn't a real representation, then it will only aid in misleading them.

Chris Browne wrote:

But, do we really know that this priest says his Mass una cum, and that priest does not? It has been awhile since I've served Mass, but , as a server, closer to the altar than those in the pews, I couldn't tell you in the many Masses I've served whether they did or not. However, I think most of us know on which side of this debate our priests fall.

That's right - we usually know. But this brings us back to grounds for a sensible discussion, away from what can only be described as a superstitious focus on the "una cum" clause, attributing some special power to it which it simply doesn't have. Historically, too, this makes sense, because it explains why most sedevacantists, including Fr. Cekada, didn't notice this "big problem" until relatively recently, and why most sedevacantist clergy still don't see it.

If being in communion with Benedict is itself the problem, then the various manifestations of that communion outside of the Holy Mass are more of a problem than the "una cum" prayer, precisely for the reason that you say - viz. the Canon is said silently.

But this is where rigorous thinking is required. The moment that we move away from the little rhetorical mantra "una cum, una cum, una cum" and out into the daylight, we find ourselves confronted by serious challenges, such as, "Are sedevacantists in communion with sedeplenists or not?" I say we are. Those who think we are not ought to make their case and we can see whether or not there is anything there. Three guesses as to why they won’t make the attempt.

I am interested in your reaction to the discovery that the "una cum" does not mean that we offer the Mass "in union with" whomever is named, but rather is a prayer for the men named.

Please see reply under, "Una Cum..." thread.

He also wrote:

Quote:

Analogy provides illustration, not proof. It's like drawing a picture. The picture may or may not be a real representation, but if it is, it will assist another to see the truth. If it isn't a real representation, then it will only aid in misleading them.

No, of course it's not. I had intended to say, "helps to prove...", or something a little less awkward. By describing it as a method, I thought I was making it clear that it was a means, and not the proof itself. I could have been clearer, I admit.

I want to publicly thank TKGS for messaging me with 'quote' information, which, as you see, I've yet to attempt!

Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:57 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

Please see reply under, "Una Cum..." thread.

Sure, but I would also remind you that you ignored these comments:

Quote:

Chris Browne wrote:

But, do we really know that this priest says his Mass una cum, and that priest does not? It has been awhile since I've served Mass, but , as a server, closer to the altar than those in the pews, I couldn't tell you in the many Masses I've served whether they did or not. However, I think most of us know on which side of this debate our priests fall.

That's right - we usually know. But this brings us back to grounds for a sensible discussion, away from what can only be described as a superstitious focus on the "una cum" clause, attributing some special power to it which it simply doesn't have. Historically, too, this makes sense, because it explains why most sedevacantists, including Fr. Cekada, didn't notice this "big problem" until relatively recently, and why most sedevacantist clergy still don't see it.

If being in communion with Benedict is itself the problem, then the various manifestations of that communion outside of the Holy Mass are more of a problem than the "una cum" prayer, precisely for the reason that you say - viz. the Canon is said silently.

But this is where rigorous thinking is required. The moment that we move away from the little rhetorical mantra "una cum, una cum, una cum" and out into the daylight, we find ourselves confronted by serious challenges, such as, "Are sedevacantists in communion with sedeplenists or not?" I say we are. Those who think we are not ought to make their case and we can see whether or not there is anything there. Three guesses as to why they won’t make the attempt.

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Upon further reflection regarding this question, I would think to answer fully, one more question needs to be asked- is there a grave need? Since, Catholics can under grave need, approach excommunicated clerics ( if no Catholic priests in good standing are available, and there is " grave need for the sacraments"...) I would think, under that exception, one could attend a Benedict TLM.... The odds of this grave need, coupled with no other Traditional Priests handy, and Benedict offering a nearby TLM, would be like one in a billion.

In Xto,Vincent

Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:55 pm

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Sedes Assisting at B16’s Traditional Mass?

Vince Sheridan wrote:

Quote:

If Benedict XVI himself (a validly-ordained priest) were to offer a traditional Latin Mass, would it be permissible for sedevacantists to actively assist at it and receive communion from him?

Upon further reflection regarding this question, I would think to answer fully, one more question needs to be asked- is there a grave need? Since, Catholics can under grave need, approach excommunicated clerics ( if no Catholic priests in good standing are available, and there is " grave need for the sacraments"...) I would think, under that exception, one could attend a Benedict TLM.... The odds of this grave need, coupled with no other Traditional Priests handy, and Benedict offering a nearby TLM, would be like one in a billion.

In Xto,Vincent

LOL try more like one in a trillion billion zillion, add a few exponents and the big bang. An infinite amount of monkeys given a keyboard are more likely to type Shakespeare then this scenario happening . Given that he is currently head of the Conciliar Church, and that he has never offered any public traditional mass since his election.

This sorts of questions are good for academic purposes, just to help form the mind as to how scholastic disputations take place. At the same time, we have to understand that they just help outline the principles which we operate, but in many cases these hypothetical cases are infinitesmal.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum